Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
Claims 1-40 are pending. Claims 14-40 are withdrawn. Claims 1-13 are examined below.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Species IA and IIA, in the reply filed on 1/5/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the angle to be measured between the bracket and stile must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-13 and claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 1-13, claim 1 recites “a support bracket that is angled relative to a stilt at an angle corresponding to an average incline angle of the installation surface”. Applicant’s specification identifies “304” as the bracket. See markup of figs. 3C and 5A. Applicant does not define what surface is to be used of the bracket to define the angle. Claims 2-13 are rejected as being dependent on claim 1.
PNG
media_image1.png
326
1035
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 3, claim 1 recites “a support bracket that is angled relative to a stilt at an angle corresponding to an average incline angle of the installation surface”, requiring a specific angle of installation. Claim 3 recites “a support bracket and a stilt receiver pivotally connected to the support bracket”, resulting in the bracket being pivotally connected to the stilt. It is unclear how the bracket can be installed at a specific angle, and yet be rotating.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 1 recites the bracket installed at a specific angle in relation to the stilt, while claim 3, depending from claim 1, recites the bracket rotating in relation to the stilt receiver, which results in rotating in relation to the stilt. The claim limitations apply to the installed device. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-8, 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Beck et al. (US 2014/0261642).
Regarding claim 1, Beck discloses a solar energy support system (holding system for mounting a photovoltaic module, see abstract) comprising:
one or more stilt (2/2a) assemblies configured to be installed onto an installation surface in a grid pattern, each stilt assembly including stilts extending different heights above the installation surface (shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]), and
wherein the stilts within the stilt assemblies are arranged so as to alternate heights within the grid pattern (shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]); and
one or more module support assemblies (bearing head 4/4a) each configured to be installed onto a column of one of the stilts (2/2a) so as to be substantially co-planar (first bearing head 4a coplanar with second bearing head 4a, first bearing head 4 coplanar with second bearing head 4) with one or more other installed module support assemblies (shown in fig. 1, see abstract and para [0053]-[0055]),
wherein each module support assembly (bearing head 4/4a) includes a securing mechanism (module clamps 16) configured to secure a solar energy module [0059]-[0064]); and
a support bracket (4) that is angled relative to a stilt at an angle corresponding to an average incline angle of the installation surface (see markup of fig. 3 below) (see para [0058]-[0062]). The examiner has elected to define the angel as between the center surface of 4 and the stile.
Note: 4 and 4a are referred to bearing head in abstract and bearing plate in para [0053]-[0055], (in addition to 14, 14a, 14’, 14’a also referred to as bearing plate). Examiner has elected to use the term bearing head for 4 and 4a to prevent confusion when/if referring to bearing surface 28/28a and surfaces 14, 14a, 14’ and 14’a.
PNG
media_image2.png
359
598
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein all stilts in the stilt assemblies have a same length (i.e., it is “possible to have bars (stilts) of equal length wherein, in this case, the ground support of the pair is driven deeper into the ground than the other ground support of the pair”, see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 7, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the different heights of the stilts are based on being installed at different depths relative to the installation surface (see discussion of claim 6, shown in fig. 8, see para [0025]).
Regarding claim 8, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the stilt assemblies are configured to be positioned at a distance apart to achieve a desired module tilt angle of the solar energy module relative to a horizon (see para [0012]-[0013]).
Regarding claim 10, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein the alternating heights of stilts in the stilt assemblies allows for a solar energy module secured to a first and second column of the stilt assemblies to face a different direction than a solar energy module secured to a second and third column of the stilt assemblies (shown in fig. 1, see para [0053]-[0055]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2125.
Regarding claim 13, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, further comprising a ground brace (28/28a, bearing surface) configured to be installed onto the stilt so as to abut the installation surface (see fig. 8, see abstract and para [0053]-[0055], [0068]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2125.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 2 and 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further as follows:
Regarding claim 2, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein heights of the substantially co-planar module support assemblies are within 100 mm of each other. Beck does disclose “the ground supports are provided and set up such that, in the mounted state, the bearing plates of a ground support pair are spaced apart from each other vertically in relation to the base and from each other horizontally in adjustment to the preferably framed photovoltaic module and that they are aligned with each other at least in essence”, disclosing the alignment as a variable to be optimized (see para [0007]).
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. alignment (100 mm of each other)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 4, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein a distal end of a first stilt in a column of stilt assemblies height (row 10 or row 10a) is aligned in essence above the installation surface with a distal end of a last stilt in the same column of stilt assemblies (see abstract and para [0007]).
Beck does not disclose the distal ends are co-planar within 100 mm.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. alignment of distal ends (100 mm of each other)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 5, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein at least one of the stilts is positioned at a corner of the solar energy module (see figs. 1, 1a, 2a, 3, para [0053]-[0064]).
The court has held drawings and pictures can anticipate claims if they clearly show the structure which is claimed. See In re Mraz, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). See also MPEP § 2125.
Beck does not disclose that at the corner as shown in figs. 1, 1a, 2a, and 3) is within 500 mm of a corner.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. at a corner (within 500 mm of a corner)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Regarding claim 9, Beck discloses a system of claim 8, but does not disclose wherein the module tilt angle is less than 20 degrees relative to the horizon.
Beck discloses the tilt angle can be optimized in relation to the sun and/or to ensure that the modules are self-cleaned by rain and that, if necessary, a snow layer slips off (see para [0015] and [0054]), and therefore discloses the tilt as a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. at a corner (within 500 mm of a corner)], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Careless (US 2024/0305239).
Regarding claim 3, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, wherein each of the module support assemblies includes a support bracket (4 bearing head, bearing surfaces 14 and14’, plus 16/16a, clamp) and a stilt receiver (aperture in 4/4a) connected to the support bracket (shown in figs. 3 and 4, see para [0058]-[0064]).
Beck does not disclose the bracket (4 bearing head, bearing surfaces 14 and14’, plus 16/16a, clamp) is pivotally connected to the stilt receiver (4/4a).
Careless is analogous art to Beck as Careless is directed to a system to mount solar modules (see abstract). Careless discloses a system to mount tilted solar modules that comprises a post (25) and a support assembly (30, sub-assembly and 20 sub-assembly) (see fig. 1, para [0069]). Careless discloses the support assembly comprises a support bracket (support assembly 30, including elongated member 120, which meets angle requirement of claim 1, i.e., bracket to stile, extrusion 150, panel support member) and a stilt receiver (sub-assembly 20) (see para [0070] and [0079]-[0083]). Careless discloses the support bracket (150 and sub-assembly 30) is rotatably connected to the stilt receiver (sub-assembly 20) through male portion (140, part of 120) and female portion (155, part of 150) to form a ball and socket connection (see para [0080]-[0083]). Careless discloses the rotating connection allows rotation of the solar panel, allowing the tilt (see para [0083]).
The court has held it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute one known device (i.e., the support assembly comprising a support bracket rotatably connected to the stilt receiver as disclosed by Careless) for another known device (i.e., the support assembly comprising a support bracket and stilt receiver of Beck), wherein the result is predictable (i.e., the rotation allowing the tilt of the solar modules).
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Delgado-Nanez (US 2023/0235923) (Nanez) and Scott et al. (US 2013/0335956).
Regarding claims 11 and 12, Beck discloses a system of claim 1, but does not disclose wherein the stilt is made of a flexible material that accommodates a distal end of the stilt being at a different location in an x-y plane than a location of penetration into the installation surface by the stilt after one or more solar energy modules are installed onto the module support assemblies (claim 11), wherein the offset allowance in an x-y plane is at least 10 mm (0.4 inch).
Nanez is analogous art to Beck as Nanez discloses that stilts (i.e., posts, poles, ground supports, etc.) of a solar cell module array deflect due to load of the mounted solar cell modules and as evidenced by Scott, applied wind loads (see Nanez fig. 9, para [0021], [0057]-[0058] and Scott para [0008]-[0009]). As stilts, piers, posts, ground supports, etc. are known to deflect, the stilts, piers, posts used in solar module arrays are flexible as used in the instant application. Further, Scott discloses those skilled in the art are able to calculated according to known methods the expected loads, the expected deflection, impact of stilt, pier, post, ground support, etc. height and design accordingly (see para [0009]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the stilt (ground support) of Beck to be flexible, meaning to deflect due to load, because the design of a solar module array must structurally account for the weight and environmental loads of the installation.
Modified Beck does not disclose the designed ability to deflect is at least 10 mm (0.4 inch). Nanez and Scott disclose the amount of designed-in deflection to be a result effective variable.
The court has held that absent criticality or unexpected results, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art to optimize a result effective variable, [i.e. designed for deflection], for the intended use of the device. Differences in said result effective variable will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See also MPEP § 2144.05.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-13 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on the specific portion of the cited prior art reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The examiner notes that applicant claims structure, but defines structure by function rather than specific structural elements. As applicant adds function limitations, that modifies what part of the prior art reads on the recited limitation. Therefore, applicant’s amendment to the functions of the parts necessitated the new grounds of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kitano et al. (US 2015/0144580) (discloses independent claim, offset post, aluminum post), Kim (US 2024/0322748) (discloses stilts with frame).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAYNE L MERSHON whose telephone number is (571)270-7869. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 to 6:00 M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Allison Bourke can be reached at (303) 297-4684. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
JAYNE L. MERSHON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1721
/JAYNE L MERSHON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1721
Prosecution Insights